Evaluating the effect of ambient and scanning lights on the trueness of the intraoral scanner.

PURPOSE To determine the influence of different scanning and ambient light conditions on the trueness values of an intraoral scanning (IOS) device. MATERIAL AND METHODS The present study was conducted among 20 complete dentate volunteers. After making complete maxillary arch impressions with vinyl polysiloxane material, type IV dental stone was poured, and working casts were obtained. Then, the models were digitized using a dental laboratory scanner (LS) and standard tessellation language (STL) files were acquired. Full arch digital scans of the volunteers were also performed using an IOS device with 2 ambient light conditions (RL: room light, 1003 lux, and ZL: zero light, 0 lux) and 2 scanning light modes (blue [B] and white [W]). Twenty digital scans per group at each light condition were consecutively obtained. Discrepancy between the digital scans and digitized working casts was analyzed using a 3D inspection software. The obtained data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (α = .05). RESULTS Significant differences were obtained among different light conditions for the IOS device (p ˂ 0.0001, F = 42.958 for positive deviations and F = 29.278, for negative deviations). The room light and blue mode (RLB) condition had the lowest deviation values compared with the other light conditions, followed by room light and white mode (RLW), zero light and blue mode (ZLB), and zero light and white mode (ZLW; p  =  0.008, p ˂ 0.0001, and p ˂ 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSION Lighting conditions are effective in assessing the trueness of the digital impressions made with an IOS device. RLB conditions are recommended for taking a digital impression. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

[1]  George Michelinakis,et al.  A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: A single-blinded in vitro study. , 2019, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[2]  Vinayak R. Krishnamurthy,et al.  Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner. , 2019, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[3]  Vinayak R. Krishnamurthy,et al.  Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. , 2019, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[4]  Thierry Bacro,et al.  Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner. , 2019, Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.].

[5]  J Abduo,et al.  Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review of Influencing Factors. , 2018, The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry.

[6]  Agustín Pascual-Moscardó,et al.  Relationship between resolution and accuracy of four intraoral scanners in complete-arch impressions , 2018, Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry.

[7]  Chikayuki Odaira,et al.  Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. , 2017, Journal of prosthodontic research.

[8]  Philip Robinson,et al.  Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression , 2017, Journal of healthcare engineering.

[9]  H. Yatani,et al.  Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[10]  S. Heo,et al.  Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[11]  Mark Ludlow,et al.  Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3‐dimensional comparisons , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[12]  B. Wöstmann,et al.  A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients. , 2016, Journal of dentistry.

[13]  Ji-Man Park,et al.  Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form , 2016, The journal of advanced prosthodontics.

[14]  G. Heydecke,et al.  Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2016, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[15]  S. Heo,et al.  Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners. , 2016, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[16]  J. Katsoulis,et al.  Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. , 2016, Quintessence international.

[17]  Y. Chun,et al.  A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction , 2016, Korean journal of orthodontics.

[18]  Jin-Hun Jeon,et al.  Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white- and blue-light scanners. , 2015, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[19]  Alfred A Bartolucci,et al.  Effect of imaging powder and CAD/CAM stone types on the marginal gap of zirconia crowns. , 2015, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[20]  Panos Papaspyridakos,et al.  Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. , 2014, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[21]  W. Att,et al.  Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners , 2014, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[22]  Ji-Hwan Kim,et al.  Comparative analysis on digital models obtained by white light and blue LED optical scanners , 2014 .

[23]  Albert Mehl,et al.  Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. , 2013, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[24]  A. Mehl,et al.  Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. , 2019, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[25]  Hae-Young Kim,et al.  Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows. , 2019, Journal of prosthodontic research.

[26]  Mantas Vaitiekūnas,et al.  Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. , 2017, European journal of oral implantology.

[27]  Hong Li,et al.  Influence of object translucency on the scanning accuracy of a powder‐free intraoral scanner: A laboratory study , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.